In message ,
writes
Openreach Standard Visit Charge (first hour) 96.11 External Shift on
same building 105.60

Openreach Network Relocation will quote before doing the work
https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/hom...ntactReason=re
move_relocate_external_network_equipment

We have the master socket in a corner with no possible nearby power, a
BT provided extension to under the stairs where mains feeds the cordless
phone system, then a home-provided extension upstairs to my "office",
where the current ADSL filter sits and feeds the router and other phone.
My extension cable was originally cable suitable for and put in for
ISDN, and I can't remember what it was or access it easily for a look.
Current ADSL download speed is 15Mbps.

Phone calls crackle a bit when it rains. I accosted an Openreach man
parked next door a couple of days ago. He was very friendly and helpful,
but was there only to check the pole for climbing safety, and said any
crackling would almost certainly be an underground problem.

I change from Demon ADSL to Plusnet fttc next Thursday. I asked Plusnet
about the cost of moving the master socket to either under the stairs or
to the office and was told £160, but they also said to try it first with
the existing cabling to see what speeds I got before spending anything.
--
Bill

On 20/08/2016 09:20, Tim Lamb wrote:


My very recent experience is that having your master socket next to the
router can double the download speed.

Often on long internal runs removing the bell wire can help.

http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/socket.htm

Probably the better option is a filtered master socket where the phone
line and your broadband are split at the master and then use cat5/5e
cable for the broadband extension.

https://www.run-it-direct.co.uk/BTNT...plate6way.html

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 20/08/16 11:44, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/08/2016 09:20, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Bert
Coules writes
"charles" wrote:

All the cabling before the master socket (and the socket itself) are
the
property of BT. You (or your builders) are not allowed to alter them.

Interesting, thanks. I wonder then why the master socket wasn't
placed by BT where the builders are suggesting putting it now. Is it
usual for the incoming cable not to run directly to a master socket
but to terminate in a junction box just inside the property and then
run on from there? Doesn't that junction in the cable affect the
quality or performance of the line?

My very recent experience is that having your master socket next to the
router can double the download speed.

Only if there is something *seriously* wrong with the house phone wiring.

The bell wire hack is good for upto a +50% improvement on an old
installation but that is nothing to do with the socket position and
everything to do with not having a long aerial flapping in the breeze.

Regards,
Martin Brown
+300baud


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 20/08/2016 09:26, Bert Coules wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the new replies.

Tim Streater wrote:

...and keep your router as
close as poss to the master socket.

Ah. If the master socket is relocated as the builders suggest, the
router will of necessity be some thirty feet from it. Is that likely to
be a problem?





There is a lot of rubbish about moving phone sockets and stuff.

The basics are..

you want a filtered base plate as the first thing on the line.

from there you run an unfiltered wire to the router and a filtered wire
to all the phones.

It isn't going to make a lot of difference how long the wires are in the
average house.

The BT face plate has two sockets on the front the filtered phone socket
and the unfiltered DSL socket but it also has connections for wires at
the rear so you can run a wire for either to a remote location without
having to plug anything in to the front.

Use a proper twisted cable for the extensions and you will be fine.


The theory is ..

the modem in the router does all the filtering for the DSL side of the
system so it needs an unfiltered line.

the phones should reject the "noise" from the DSL signal so will work on
an unfiltered line unless they are cr@p.

You need the filter on the phone side to stop the line characteristics
changing when you pick the phones up or when the exchange applies
ringing or test network equipment. If you don't have the phone filter
the modem will retrain and you lose the connection for a bit.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 20/08/16 09:20, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Bert
Coules writes
"charles" wrote:

All the cabling before the master socket (and the socket itself) are the
property of BT. You (or your builders) are not allowed to alter them.

Interesting, thanks. I wonder then why the master socket wasn't
placed by BT where the builders are suggesting putting it now. Is it
usual for the incoming cable not to run directly to a master socket
but to terminate in a junction box just inside the property and then
run on from there? Doesn't that junction in the cable affect the
quality or performance of the line?

My very recent experience is that having your master socket next to the
router can double the download speed.

My consistent experience is that that is utter rubbish, unless you have
a wiring fault as well.

Spider work maybe. The original input fed 4 telephone points. One of
which was connected to the router. Max speed 5 to 8Meg.
There was no master socket.

Following the recent nearby lightning strike, Open Reach fitted a master
socket at the input point. When I whinged about line speeds he
volunteered to move the master to where the router is connected.
This allowed the disposal of filters recommended by my provider.









--
Tim Lamb

In message , Andy Burns
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

My very recent experience is that having your master socket next to the
router can double the download speed.

Which suggests "faulty" wiring has been removed in the process of
moving it, did you have star-wired extensions or multiple master
sockets beforehand?

Star!



--
Tim Lamb

Cost isn't the issue, being less conspicuous might be ...

I assumed it would be properly behind the walls surface...

I imagine that chased into the walls is the plan but I'll check with the
builders as to exactly what they're planning. Thanks.

"dennis@home" wrote:

There is a lot of rubbish about moving phone sockets and stuff.
The basics are...

Many thanks for that.

In message ,
writes
On Saturday, 20 August 2016 09:26:18 UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
Ah! I'm heading straight for this problem. The incoming phone line is
right where the new roof trusses need to go.
Due to bereavement the phone use is suspended. Previously, electricians
working for the builder have dealt with simple re-positioning.
What is the proper procedure and how much might it cost?

Openreach Standard Visit Charge (first hour) 96.11
External Shift on same building 105.60

Openreach Network Relocation will quote before doing the work
https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/hom...ntactReason=re
move_relocate_external_network_equipment

OK Ta.

--
Tim Lamb

On 20/08/2016 08:47, Bert Coules wrote:
Currently, the incoming phone cable terminates in a small junction box
on the front wall of the property, from where a separate cable runs some
thirty feet to the master socket. The phone and wired router are both
located on a desk very close to the master socket.

The builders doing some renovation work on the house have suggested
putting the master socket on the front wall and then running two cables
to the desk area. Is there any technical reason why that shouldn't be
done? Will the internet performance be affected if the router is further
from the master socket than it is at present?

Thanks.

As others have said, either arrangement will work perfectly well.

But what is their rationale for wanting to change it?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:

But what is their rationale for wanting to change it?

I have no idea. I'm seeing the owner of the company on Monday and will try
to find out then.

alan_m wrote:

Probably the better option is a filtered master socket where the phone
line and your broadband are split at the master and then use cat5/5e
cable for the broadband extension.

https://www.run-it-direct.co.uk/BTNT...plate6way.html

If you get an engineer install of FTTC, the new "MK3" faceplates for the
NTE5 include IDC connections to allow a DSL extension as well as POTS
extensions. I hear talk of an even newer "NTE5C"

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/2016-article-illustrations/nte5c_flyer.jpg

On 8/20/2016 9:18 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

BT prefer to terminate direct onto master socket, and as long as this is
within a metre or so of point of entry they will do that.
Further than that they will charge.

Any joint can result in degradation of signal - however you are unlikely
to notice this.

If where you want master socket is a long way form point of entry they
would normally terminate in a box and then run cable to the master socket.

As someone mentioned this would be in a 'lozenge' shaped box

Anything before the master socket, including the terminal box, is the
property of Openreach.
Legally only they can work on this.
However records are not up to date - you could move and as long as it is
done with correct terminations, unlikely to ever be queried.

The recommend answer if asked was to say your guy moved it for me
........ no engineer is going to drop his mate in it.

However if not correctly terminated and incorrect cable - then you will
be charged in the event of a fault.

Just back from the site where I discovered that things have happened in my
absence: the builders have chased in a trunking run up to above the ceiling
line and installed (though not connected) a single run of Cat 5 from the
existing front-wall junction box to what will become an AV equipment
cupboard. A second Cat 5 run goes from there to the desk area.

Are they anticipating my putting the router into the AV cupboard, perhaps?
Would that be the standard thing to do?

If so (and even if not) I can see the value of a second cable direct from
the junction box to the desk, for the phone.

They've used one stretch of the same trunking to run some speaker cable -
any problems with that arrangement?

Picture of the junction box at
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...one%20line.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/hhkhq73





"Bert Coules" wrote in message
...
Cost isn't the issue, being less conspicuous might be ...

I assumed it would be properly behind the walls surface...

I imagine that chased into the walls is the plan but I'll check with the
builders as to exactly what they're planning. Thanks.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 08:54:59 +0100, charles
wrote:

AIn article , Bert
Coules wrote:
Currently, the incoming phone cable terminates in a small junction box on
the front wall of the property, from where a separate cable runs some
thirty feet to the master socket. The phone and wired router are both
located on a desk very close to the master socket.

The builders doing some renovation work on the house have suggested
putting the master socket on the front wall and then running two cables
to the desk area. Is there any technical reason why that shouldn't be
done? Will the internet performance be affected if the router is
further from the master socket than it is at present?

all the cabling before the master socket (and the socket itself) are the
property of BT. You (or your builders) are not allowed to alter them.

True. I don't know about the OP, but I haven't got £130 to spend on a
simple job that I can do myself for next to nothing in half an hour.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 20/08/16 18:40, Tim Streater wrote:
Once we were online again, *the two extra punch connections reduced the
speed to about 4.5Mbps*, where it stayed until we got FTTC.

You have absolutely *NO* evidence to support that.

I got from 4.5 to 6Mbps at the cost of coffee and doughnuts because an
engineer selected the quietest pair of lines on the trunk.

Crosstalk from other ADSL users is enough to knock that much S/N off any
pair.

Your speed didn't reduce because of connections, your speed reduced
because in the new cable all the ADSL subscribers were adjacent.




--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

In article , rick
writes
On 8/20/2016 9:18 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

BT prefer to terminate direct onto master socket, and as long as this
is within a metre or so of point of entry they will do that.
Further than that they will charge.

When I went over to FTTC OR engineer moved my master socket to the other
end of the house f-o-c. ISTR the limit was about 15 meters BICBW.
Any joint can result in degradation of signal - however you are
unlikely to notice this.

If where you want master socket is a long way form point of entry they
would normally terminate in a box and then run cable to the master
socket.

As someone mentioned this would be in a 'lozenge' shaped box

Anything before the master socket, including the terminal box, is the
property of Openreach.
Legally only they can work on this.
However records are not up to date - you could move and as long as it
is done with correct terminations, unlikely to ever be queried.

The recommend answer if asked was to say your guy moved it for me
....... no engineer is going to drop his mate in it.

However if not correctly terminated and incorrect cable - then you will
be charged in the event of a fault.

--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 20/08/16 10:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/08/16 09:20, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Bert
Coules writes
"charles" wrote:

All the cabling before the master socket (and the socket itself)
are the
property of BT. You (or your builders) are not allowed to alter them.

Interesting, thanks. I wonder then why the master socket wasn't
placed by BT where the builders are suggesting putting it now. Is it
usual for the incoming cable not to run directly to a master socket
but to terminate in a junction box just inside the property and then
run on from there? Doesn't that junction in the cable affect the
quality or performance of the line?

My very recent experience is that having your master socket next to the
router can double the download speed.

My consistent experience is that that is utter rubbish, unless you
have a wiring fault as well.

My experience ws that getting the house phone wiring shortened and
improved, removing the bell wire, and having the router close to the MS
doubled your download speed.

*improved* is the key issue.
And removing the bell wire.

I used to be 1 mile and a bit from the exchange. 20 feet of extra
wiring will make sod all difference.

Its a little bit more critical with FTTC because there its a few
hundred meters max cable and 20 feet might make a difference, but the
real key is *sorting out* the internal wiring, not shortening it.

e.g. a friend phoned me a couple of year back and we got to discussing
his dire speeds and whether or not he should 'go fibre' I asked him
what his noise and attenuation figures were. They were just not right.
He had lots of power, but massive noise.

"Summat up with the house wiring" I said so he took his BT sockets
apart...and discovered unused extension wires hanging off the *hot*
side of the ADSL all over the place and under the floorboards.

He ripped all that off and, yes, his speed more than doubled.,

For exactly the same length connection to his router as he already had.






--
bert

In article , Clive Page
writes
On 20/08/2016 09:20, Tim Lamb wrote:
My very recent experience is that having your master socket next to the
router can double the download speed.

Yes, I thought it was standard practice now to put the router right
next to the master socket.

That gives us a problem in upgrading to use FTTC, as I assume it would
involve putting an ugly new box on the wall near the master socket
which is currently in the hallway, as was common practice 30 years ago.
Unfortunately there's no mains socket nearby except a single one on the
other side of a doorway (and that's needed from time to time for a
vacuum cleaner). Does anyone know whether OpenReach are willing to
install a new master socket in a new location if one upgrades to FTTC
without charging an arm and a leg?


They id it f-o-c for me - exactly the same scenario. There is a cable
length limit (15 metres?)
--
bert

bert wrote:

They id it f-o-c for me - exactly the same scenario. There is a cable
length limit (15 metres?)

Your ISP paid for the engineer install with optional socket move, there
is also a no-move engineer option, and a no-engineer option.

On 20/08/2016 19:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/08/16 18:40, Tim Streater wrote:
Once we were online again, *the two extra punch connections reduced the
speed to about 4.5Mbps*, where it stayed until we got FTTC.

You have absolutely *NO* evidence to support that.

I got from 4.5 to 6Mbps at the cost of coffee and doughnuts because an
engineer selected the quietest pair of lines on the trunk.

Crosstalk from other ADSL users is enough to knock that much S/N off any
pair.

Your speed didn't reduce because of connections, your speed reduced
because in the new cable all the ADSL subscribers were adjacent.





Bloody hell TNP got something near correct.

All the pairs have different twist rates to reduce crosstalk but having
DSL on two with similar twist rates can cause more crosstalk than
another pair with a big difference in twist rates.

On 20/08/2016 22:06, Tim Streater wrote:


Possibly, possibly. But it was still the fault of the scroats. And they
didn't even get away with the cable - they'd overlooked how to escape
with 400m of 400-pair.


The media probably ensured that similar crimes would continue by
reporting that thieves took copper _worth_ many £100k.

The monetary value they usually quote is the manpower and materials cost
to repair the damage and not the scrap value of what was stolen

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

When we went fibre nothing was changed in the house or between the house and cabinet. All we got was a call from the Openreach engineer before starting the work at the cabinet and a test call when he finished. As far as changing faceplates on the NTE5 socket that was down to the consumer or the consumers provider. In our case Sky only provide plug in filters so we provided our own VDSL faceplate.

As far as doing your own work on the Openreach side of the master socket, I doubt they would know unless something was not connected properly. Openreach use quite a few contractors and I do not think too much is recorded. We had a pole replaced recently by a contractor. One engineer made all the disconnections when reconnecting he changed some of the anchor fixtures using sausage like junction boxes where cables no longer reached. He changed a junction box on our wire which was located on a fascia board we were intending to replace, I did not see any record keeping of any changes.

Incidentally Openreach will not talk to any end user regards rerouting wires it all has to be done through your provider. At my daughters new build the builder put in all the underground trunking pavement boxes and the wiring Openreach only did the final connections and it took 3 months before that happened. Inside the house the builder provided a simple extension socket near the entry point and an exterior connection box which was to be the equivalent of the master socket was to be fitted. In the end Openreach fitted a standard NTE5 socket internally and must have used some sort of junction box hidden in the trunking since the original wire coming up the conduit was a black sheathed cable yet the wire coming out of the trunking to the NTE5 is white sheathed.

Richard

In article , Tricky
Dicky wrote:
When we went fibre nothing was changed in the house or between the house
and cabinet. All we got was a call from the Openreach engineer before
starting the work at the cabinet and a test call when he finished. As far
as changing faceplates on the NTE5 socket that was down to the consumer
or the consumers provider. In our case Sky only provide plug in filters
so we provided our own VDSL faceplate.

We had a call to say work was started, then a visit to change the faceplate
and plug in the modem. Then a test.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

dennis@home wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Crosstalk from other ADSL users is enough to knock that much S/N off any
pair.

Bloody hell TNP got something near correct.

We used to get dismally unreliable 2-3Mbps ADSL until FTTC came here,
mine was the second order to get processed, I got the full 79.9/19.9Mbps
down/up rate (the modem said it could achieve over 120/28 if not
throttled by BT) gradually as more neighbours converted the downstream
sloped off to 72M (still nothing to complain about as that was the
original estimated speed) recently this jumped back to 78.6, I wonder if
vectoring has been enabled to help cancel crosstalk?

Tim Streater wrote:

it was still the fault of the scroats. And they
didn't even get away with the cable - they'd overlooked how to escape
with 400m of 400-pair.

Oh they worked out how to do it here ... twice.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Run two cables. The extra cost is peenutz.

Thanks for that. Just back from the site where I discovered that things
have happened in my absence: the builders have chased in a trunking run up
to above the ceiling line and installed (though not connected) a single run
of Cat 5 from the existing front-wall junction box to what will become an AV
equipment cupboard. A second Cat 5 run goes from there to the desk area.

Are they anticipating my putting the router into the AV cupboard, perhaps?
Would that be the standard thing to do?

If so (and even if not) I can see the value of a second cable direct from
the junction box to the desk, for the phone.

They've used one stretch of the same trunking to run some speaker cable -
any problems with that arrangement?

Picture of the junction box at
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...one%20line.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/hhkhq73

On 21/08/16 08:17, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Crosstalk from other ADSL users is enough to knock that much S/N off any
pair.

Bloody hell TNP got something near correct.

Bloody hell, we've found something that Denise actually knows about.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

Bert Coules wrote:

the builders have chased in a trunking run up
to above the ceiling line and installed (though not connected) a single run
of Cat 5 from the existing front-wall junction box

I see from the photo that it is a genuine BT box.

to what will become an AV
equipment cupboard. A second Cat 5 run goes from there to the desk area.

Are they anticipating my putting the router into the AV cupboard, perhaps?
Would that be the standard thing to do?

Not exactly standard as most people don't have a media cupboard, but not
a bad place to hide it, I have my router in a cupboard with all the
other IT clutter, generally no need to see the blinkenlights.

They've used one stretch of the same trunking to run some speaker cable -
any problems with that arrangement?

Shouldn't be, DSL signals start well above audio frequencies.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

it was still the fault of the scroats. And they
didn't even get away with the cable - they'd overlooked how to escape
with 400m of 400-pair.

Oh they worked out how to do it here ... twice.

twice here, too - only it was 2000 pair cable. In the next village they
removed the whole exchange!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Andy Burns wrote:

Not exactly standard as most people don't have a media cupboard, but not a
bad place to hide it, I have my router in a cupboard with all the other IT
clutter, generally no need to see the blinkenlights.

Thanks for that, and the other points. I'm fine with putting the router in
the media cupboard - the PlusNet model doesn't so much blink as gla it
has a huge and fierce blue light right across its face which I'd be happy to
hide - but it does occur to me that I'll need a direct cable from the new
master socket to the phone, which the current wiring doesn't include.
Unless the builder has some other idea.









They've used one stretch of the same trunking to run some speaker cable -
any problems with that arrangement?

Shouldn't be, DSL signals start well above audio frequencies.

alan_m wrote:

On 20/08/2016 22:06, Tim Streater wrote:


Possibly, possibly. But it was still the fault of the scroats. And they
didn't even get away with the cable - they'd overlooked how to escape
with 400m of 400-pair.


The media probably ensured that similar crimes would continue by
reporting that thieves took copper _worth_ many £100k.

The monetary value they usually quote is the manpower and materials cost
to repair the damage and not the scrap value of what was stolen

Unless you're prepared to spend several days tending an extremely toxic
bonfire I doubt that multipair cable has any scrap value.


--

Roger Hayter

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

On 21/08/16 08:17, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Crosstalk from other ADSL users is enough to knock that much S/N off
any
pair.

Bloody hell TNP got something near correct.

Bloody hell, we've found something that Denise actually knows about.

Would that be the crosstalk, or TNP being near correct?
;-

On 21/08/16 09:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
alan_m wrote:

On 20/08/2016 22:06, Tim Streater wrote:


Possibly, possibly. But it was still the fault of the scroats. And they
didn't even get away with the cable - they'd overlooked how to escape
with 400m of 400-pair.


The media probably ensured that similar crimes would continue by
reporting that thieves took copper _worth_ many £100k.

The monetary value they usually quote is the manpower and materials cost
to repair the damage and not the scrap value of what was stolen

Unless you're prepared to spend several days tending an extremely toxic
bonfire I doubt that multipair cable has any scrap value.


Well that's exactly what gippos do.



--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 21/08/2016 09:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/16 08:17, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Crosstalk from other ADSL users is enough to knock that much S/N off
any
pair.

Bloody hell TNP got something near correct.

Bloody hell, we've found something that Denise actually knows about.




Sod off and put me back in your killfile.

lid posted
The basics are..

you want a filtered base plate as the first thing on the line.

from there you run an unfiltered wire to the router and a filtered wire
to all the phones.

It isn't going to make a lot of difference how long the wires are in
the average house.

The BT face plate has two sockets on the front the filtered phone
socket and the unfiltered DSL socket but it also has connections for
wires at the rear so you can run a wire for either to a remote location
without having to plug anything in to the front.

Use a proper twisted cable for the extensions and you will be fine.


The theory is ..

the modem in the router does all the filtering for the DSL side of the
system so it needs an unfiltered line.

So why is the base plate filtered?

--
Les
It's nice to have a file with MD5 = E3A32D4451AB69A9C66D2F36E251C0C3

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
lid posted
The basics are..

you want a filtered base plate as the first thing on the line.

from there you run an unfiltered wire to the router and a filtered wire
to all the phones.

It isn't going to make a lot of difference how long the wires are in
the average house.

The BT face plate has two sockets on the front the filtered phone
socket and the unfiltered DSL socket but it also has connections for
wires at the rear so you can run a wire for either to a remote location
without having to plug anything in to the front.

Use a proper twisted cable for the extensions and you will be fine.


The theory is ..

the modem in the router does all the filtering for the DSL side of the
system so it needs an unfiltered line.

So why is the base plate filtered?

to keep the adsl signal out of the phone.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 22/08/16 10:05, Big Les Wade wrote:
lid posted
The basics are..

you want a filtered base plate as the first thing on the line.

from there you run an unfiltered wire to the router and a filtered
wire to all the phones.

It isn't going to make a lot of difference how long the wires are in
the average house.

The BT face plate has two sockets on the front the filtered phone
socket and the unfiltered DSL socket but it also has connections for
wires at the rear so you can run a wire for either to a remote
location without having to plug anything in to the front.

Use a proper twisted cable for the extensions and you will be fine.


The theory is ..

the modem in the router does all the filtering for the DSL side of the
system so it needs an unfiltered line.

So why is the base plate filtered?

WEll dennis is as per usual spouting stuff he doesn't understand.
Actually there is NO filtering in the ADSL modem to speak of.

Not in the senses of passive components, anyway.

ALL the filtering is to stop phone kit shorting out the HF ADSL signals.

That's why its on the face plate. Its to block ADSL frequencies FROM the
phones getting to the modem and to stop the phones shorting the ADSL



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 22/08/16 10:14, charles wrote:
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
lid posted
The basics are..

you want a filtered base plate as the first thing on the line.

from there you run an unfiltered wire to the router and a filtered wire
to all the phones.

It isn't going to make a lot of difference how long the wires are in
the average house.

The BT face plate has two sockets on the front the filtered phone
socket and the unfiltered DSL socket but it also has connections for
wires at the rear so you can run a wire for either to a remote location
without having to plug anything in to the front.

Use a proper twisted cable for the extensions and you will be fine.


The theory is ..

the modem in the router does all the filtering for the DSL side of the
system so it needs an unfiltered line.

So why is the base plate filtered?

to keep the adsl signal out of the phone.

To keep the phone out of the ADSL



--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

charles explained :
all the cabling before the master socket (and the socket itself) are the
property of BT. You (or your builders) are not allowed to alter them.

That is the official situation, but in practise and so long as a decent
job is made of it - the engineers will not care at all.

We have an overhead line, which used to run down the outside wall and
was constantly coming adrift from the wall, numerous noisy connections.
On there last many years ago, I offered to help them get the cable
straight into the loft and a master socket just inside the loft - to
avoid the untidy run being down our outside wall. He was more than
happy to accomodate me doing that if I did the work inside.

I then ran everything else, router + 10 sockets inside and hidden from
view. That was long before wireless phones came on the market and most
of my sockets are now redundant. There have been no issues since then,
apart from on the exchange line. I didn't mention I used to work for
the GPO on telecomms, back in the Strowager days.